About your Search

20130126
20130203
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is i have hadtors than with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was the start of
. yorktown, appomattox, the pentagon where 9/11 occurred -- there is a ceremony tonight i will be commissioned in -- there is a commission in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. at the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military
remarks. the pentagon has moved expand its cyber security efforts. i have to talk about colorado. the air force academy is well positioned to train those new experts. would you talk a little more on your take on cyber security and what sort of resources we need. >> i've been to those facilities in colorado a few times and don't know as much about them as you do, but i am familiar with them. they are essential to our national security. cyber, i believe represents as big a threat to the security of this country as any one specific threat. for all the reasons this committee understands. it's an insidious, quiet, kind of a threat that we have never quite seen before. it can paralyze a nation in a second. not just a power grid or banking system. but it can knock out satellites. it can take down computers on all our carrier battle ships and do tremendous damage to our national security apparatus. that is the larger threat. but when you start defining it down, this body, i know. i watched it. it went through a pretty agonizing three months at the end of 2012 trying to find a bill they could agre
in new york. the pentagon is broken. what do we know about al qaeda? did we know that members of this network, all this information we take for granted now? >> we did not know that much. we did not know who was responsible for 9/11. we had a few assets that provided us some peripheral information. we did not know very much. it took a long time for us to be in a position to really learn what was going on. in march of 2002, we captured al zabeta. we recognized that we had to do something different. contrary to what some people are saying, he initially provided a couple of pieces of information. then he shut down. we knew they were coming after us in the second wave of attacks. we knew that they had a nuclear program. they had a biological weapons program. we thought we needed to do something different. that is when the enhanced interrogation program came into existence. he went through the program, started in august of 2002 for 20 days or so. a few weeks later we captured a major player. ben-al-shib. he was a go-between. this was the key to all of that. we forget that it was not
announcements coming out of the pentagon. i was looking at one just now because i was trying to remember the numbers. the pentagon is beefing up its cyber security force. the other one that is apparently being beefed up in these times of budgetary constraints or the special forces. tom, would you talk about that generally, and fred, if you talk about that in the broader nature of it. then we will get to the nonexistent challenge that faces us in asia. >> these new capabilities, cyber operations or whatever you want to call them, are certainly necessary and needed, and our ability to exploit the electromagnetic spectrum configured as the internet is pretty critical. it is not qualitatively different from other forms of intelligence gathering or attempts either by propaganda means or by direct attack took back the military or strategic situations. to some degree it is understandable, but as fred alluded, particularly direct action special operations unit don't just magically appear and sustain themselves. if you have seen "zero dark thirty, is a great picture of how the intelligence manhun
, a billion dollars from special education. $3 billion from the pentagon's defense sfund. $7 billion from army operations. and earthworm does some work for the defense department. so earthworm could get hurt in this, couldn't it? >> that's right. the number one function of the federal government is to keep the people safe and representing the highest concentration of men and women in uniform, i can tell you that these cuts are irresponsible even if i believe we should reduce federal spending. it hurts job creation. there's a better path forward. and we should reduce it over time not over night. >> go ahead. >> there's no question about what he says it's true about the defense cuts. the secretary of defense said it would be catastrophic to let sequester hit the military for half a trillion -- >> but you still think it's an option -- >> half a trillion dollars. let me put the other side to you. i should add too that sequester doesn't do anything about the greatest underlying problem with regard to spending. and that has to do with the expansion of the welfare state and entitlement programs and t
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)